>> You and I can go into town, rent a room, call the management of any company over for a lunch meeting and then when they arrive, we can casually announce that we are conducting a fact finding inquiry into blah, blah, blah.<<
That could happen, but given the fact that Sylver is aware that Wellrich is pursuing being paid, why would he go to lunch with them? I think he knew what he was walking into and chose not to participate which does not negate the hearing. Another scenario could be:
The hypothesis that fits the description is that Wellrich and AZNT had some sort of a contract. That contract included a clause that any disputes would be resolved by arbitration. However, when Wellrich made a claim against AZNT in arbitration, AZNT refused to participate. In arbitration lingo, they failed to present a defense.
It is highly unusual for an arbitrator to "advise and project that a party should get everything that they sued for", but perhaps this is because AZNT failed to present a defense...perhaps their "defense" was just Sylver yelling at Wellrich's attorney or even the arbitrator or panel of arbitrators. Let's assume that AZNT was not even represented by counsel, that Sylver was there to represent AZNT. An arbitrator might very well say something like "Mr. Sylver, you have to understand how the arbitration process works. The rules require that you submit an answer, you comply with the discovery process, and you present a defense during the hearing. If you fail to do this, I (if there's a sole arbitrator) or the arbitration panel (if there are 3 or 5 arbitrators) may simply rule against you and award Wellrich everything they have sought. Now, are you going to cooperate or not?"
The court order could come about in two ways:
1) because AZNT failed to present a defense, the arbitrator or panel went ahead and ruled against them and DID make their award verbally at the end of the hearing: I/we hereby award damages of $xxxxx against AZNT. That would be followed up with an award in writing; this could take days or weeks to be processed.
Assuming the arbitrators made a verbal award, since AZNT would not be expected to pay, Wellrich would go to court to confirm the award, thereby converting the arbitrators' decision into a court order. Now, if AZNT fails to pay pursuant to a court order, they are in deep trouble.
2) the panel may have declined to make such an award, suggesting that Wellrich first go to court to get an order to compel AZNT to proceed with the arbitration.
Either scenario makes sense, but given the statement about their having found out that AZNT lost, the first one makes more sense: the arbitrator/panel entered a default judgment and Wellrich is going to court to confirm it. However, the "compel" lingo suggests the second alternative. It could be either, but both make sense.
(Courtesy of a lurker familiar with arbitration proceedings) |
